The Hypostatic Union- the 2 Natures in Christ
- Thread starter civic
- Start date
Johann
Well-known member
What is so complex of this article-my, my-what is apologetic's-Apologia-we need to unpack the Scripture reference you have given-go deeper, study to show ourselves a man approved, rightly dividing the Scriptures.Hello @Johann,
Thank you for kindly providing the link for consideration.Yet, how complex man has made everything. Genesis 2:7 is so much simpler.
'And the LORD God formed man
of the dust of the ground,
and breathed into his nostrils
the breath of life;
and man became a living soul.'
(Gen 2:7)
In the name of Christ our Saviour,
now risen and glorified,
and sat at God's right hand.
Chris
Is man a Dichotomy, Tricotomy-Do God have a nephesh?
Anyway-
Thanks.
Johann.
I read up on Neo-Apollinarianism. It is not what I believe. Try another guess at what I'm saying because, let's face it, that's all you're doing. You can't understand what I say so you jump to the nearest thing in your mind. It's like playing charades.
The very term incarnation literally means to take on flesh. If the Divine nature is being veiled and not in action what consciousness is left to take up residence in the body prepared for Him? You have God the Son having a soul created for Him in a point of time even though the scripture only recounts of a body being prepared. That would make Him half eternal and half created. You can't seem to comprehend that your consciousness, will, thinking, emotion, conscience, all that makes you human, originates in your soul, not your body. Your soul is your person, your body is the vehicle that expresses your person. Christ's humanity was already in existence prior to that body being prepared. He is the eternal God/man, He didn't change being the person He is at the Incarnation.
So one eternal nature and one nature created in time. Sure why not. The half eternal Son of God.
Diserner
Well-known member
If you think His humanity was created in time? That would actually make Him two persons, one eternal, one created. He is not two persons. If you think that it is only a body and soul together that makes a human? Then the Son was devoid of any humanity until the Incarnation. Interesting that he should be referred to as one "like the Son of man" in Daniel.
Daniel 7:13
“I was watching in the night visions, And behold, One like the Son of Man, Coming with the clouds of heaven! He came to the Ancient of Days, And they brought Him near before Him.
civic
Well-known member
you don’t understand the Incarnation by your above post.
Diserner
Well-known member
What if, theoretically, he was able to "transfer" his personhood.
So a divine person up to the incarnation.
Then the divine person transfers into a human person.
What do you think?
civic
Well-known member
Unbiblical and heretical
Diserner
Well-known member
Unbiblical and heretical
You seem to be confusing your arbitrary Theologian's authority, most of which you reject some belief down the line anyway, for simply what the Bible actually says.
"The Word became flesh."
Unbiblical and heretical!!1111!!
It means something else, trust me brah, it has to cause big book told me so!!111!!
— silly theologians who look to man-made books
civic
Well-known member
If God turned into a man leaving behind His deity its heretical
Jesus isn't a human person He is the person of God the Son. He became as a human person by denying Himself the right to act in His own authority as Deity (God). He could only do that if He was already a union of God and man. He just needed a body (Heb.10:5)
He was already presenting Himself in the form of a man when walking in the Garden with Adam or speaking with Abraham concerning Lot in Sodom but that was just a form of body not a real flesh and blood body. Nor was He denying Himself as God in those encounters.
What I find ironic is that even my agnostic son understands the basic concept of why the Word had to be Deity and humanity united in one person in order to make God known to us. As deity alone he would have essentially gone right over our head. God is Spirit, Spirit is like the wind, you cannot see, feel, hear, touch or smell the wind, only it's effects. If the trees did not move or there were no nerves in you skin etc we would have no idea that there is a wind let alone what it is like or what it can do. In the same manner God as God could never present Himself to us in way that our feeble minds could comprehend. We would be like primitives who see a volcano erupt and must think God is angry and needs appeasing. Hence in the beginning was the Word, God in the language of being human. God and man united in one person.
Tell me in what way are your beliefs different than Dr. Craig's? You can't just claim things without proof. Here is my proof that there is no noteworthy difference between your beliefs and Dr. Craig's beliefs. In a nutshell, Dr. Craig's heresy states that the Word of God already had a mind and soul so there was only a body that was needed at the Incarnation. Here are two excerpts (in blue) from the Reformed Arsenal website that back up what I said and that you read earlier:
On my model the Logos, the Second Person of the Trinity, is the soul of Jesus Christ. By taking on a human body the Logos completed the human nature of Christ, making him a body/soul composite. So Christ has two complete natures, divine and human. (Craig 2011)
Note that the highlighted portion above aligns perfectly with your "your soul is your person" statement.
Craig postulates that the divine Logos had all the attributes sufficient for human personhood, except a body. Thus, in the incarnation, the only thing which was assumed was a human body, and instead of a human mind the Logos takes up residence. This move is where the model gains the name Neo-Apollinarianism. Christ did not take a human soul, a human mind, a human spirit. He only took the additional physical attributes that a human person has, without taking any immaterial attributes that a human person has.
First you failed to prove that John 1:1 proves your point and then you failed to provide any record of a disembodied soul being born or created. Now you're flailing away trying to alter the very definition of the Incarnation to align with your Neo-Apollinarianism beliefs. Sorry, there is no Biblical basis for it.
Diserner
Well-known member
civic
Well-known member
Where ?
Diserner
Well-known member
Hebrews 4:14 says Christ was in all points tempted as I am.
I am tempted as a human person. I am not tempted as a zombified nature.
Read Hebrews chapter 2 in full—this describes Christ's identity in terms of personhood.
Please don't be retarded and demand a verse that literally uses the exact four words "Jesus is a human person."
I don't believe taking on a body completed His human nature. His human nature is in His Soul, existing eternally.
I don't believe the mind of God (Logos) replaced the human mind in taking up residence.
The Soul of God is not created therefore I don't have to show any record of a disembodied soul being created. You are the one saying a soul cannot exist unless it is born into a body. And just where does this soul come from if not created by God? Ergo, you must necessarily have a God who is part eternal and part created.
God the Son is not a soul, God the Son is Spirit/Deity/God and Soul/humanity/man in perfect union. By veiling his first nature He could function solely as a human person when a body was prepared for Him. You cannot have His humanity (which is in His Soul) created at some later date. He can have a body created a point in time because humanity does not originate from the body, the body expresses humanity.
I at least am trying to explain why I believe what I believe. Instead of just saying to me "your wrong", why don't you try explaining how Christ can take on a second nature at a point in time and still be the same person who He was in the beginning? Where does the scripture say He assumed a soul? It clearly tells us a body was prepared for Him, why omit something as crucial as His soul/spirit?
How about a little less denouncing of others and detail the hows and whys of your beliefs in your own words and not just the recitation of creeds or what others say. Let's see if you even know why you believe what you believe.
